Sunday, March 18, 2012

Barnes on the Affordable Care Act in the Supreme Court

Washington Post reporter Robert Barnes offers (here) a trenchant assessment of prospects for the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") before the Supreme Court, which refreshingly focuses on the inevitably political, rather than legal, basis of the Court's decision.

The simple fact of the matter is that the ambiguous language of the constitution does not provide a clear answer to the question of whether Congress can require individuals to purchase health insurance. The Court's interpretation(s) of constitutional language will be neither objectively right nor objectively wrong but inevitably will be hotly and legitimately disputed.

1 comment:

Seems to me if the boneheads in congress would have called the penalty a tax (or better, just call it a tax to which people who carry insurance get an exemption), rather than a fine "levied as a tax," we wouldn't have this argument.

About Me

Teaching and Research Interests

I teach Property, Environmental Law, Natural Resources Law, Land Use, and Law & Economics. My research interests are interdisciplinary, focusing on the law and economics of property and environmental protection.

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily represent the views of Indiana University or any person other than the author.